Well this is intriguing.But as Ewen has been with the BBC since 1993 there doesn’t seem anything new about it. And as for being one of the ‘main architects’ of the Poll Tax, it seems he was seconded from the Institute of Fiscal Studies to work on the policy (surely one of the worst policies ever), but left the IFS in 1988 at the age of 26. Are you sure he was one of the ‘main architects’? I think you protest too much.

With respect, Evan Davis, age 52, a flamboyant homosexual, can hardly be said to be ‘joining the BBC’ since he has worked on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Today’ Programme and BBC2’s Newsnight [as contributor] for years now, as well as voicing over ten series of BBC2’s Dragon’s Den programme about entrepreneurs.

Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
Evan Davies, now set to take over from Paxo, stands revealed as highly ideological, staunch Tory, which as one of the commenters points out, makes you wonder if there is anyone on the BBC’s news team who isn’t one. There’s also another factor acting against Davies. Will his job as Paxo’s replacement make the people he’s interviewing fear that they’re about to lose an investment deal with Bannatyne, Paphitis et al? Actually, considering the way all the parties are trying to get funding through sponsorship by private industry, that’s a real possibility.

After Dragons Den see him more as an entertainer than serious journo. It’ll make it easier for Politicians to lie as they won’t be looking him straight in the eye as they tow the party line. It’s sad when you don’t immediately think the guy has got the gig on merit but rather what does he know, what has he done, what evidence does he have on someone.Or am I being cynical?

Nothing more or less than I would expect from the BBC. They’re obviously too dim to realise this man is one of those who tried to shut them as a nationalised company and put them in private hands. Or, perhaps he is one of those who has something on someone high up. I do often wonder how some get away with murder and others are ostracised by the BBC. It reeks of corruption

I think it is about time the public faced some quite hard truths. In my view, the news is no longer ‘the news’ – it is, instead a vehicle for pushing government propaganda and an attempt to bend and shape public opinion.

I saw the BBC News for the first time in ages on Friday evening ( I gave up watching tv about three years ago ) and was shocked,and enraged by the hushed and grief stricken tones the BBC employed whilst talking about the dead children of Flight MH17 – shocked and outraged because it totally failed to mention the dead children of Gaza because comparisons have to be made and how can it ever be acceptable to eulogise one set of victims and yet ignore others ?

And so you deduce that news is no longer news but propaganda and I really hate the absolute dishonesty.

It’s been clear to me for some time now FinkFurst that you have absolutely no idea what satire is supposed to be.
That’s why you incessantly complain about my blogposts.
I think you need to find yourself a website you can understand.

…and previously I thought the same of you! It seems that whenever I disagree with the target or basis of one of your blogposts then suddenly I’ve become unintelligent! How weird is that? Can you explain it?

I completely disagree with you! Sometimes your site IS news and frequently it IS propaganda. Until you aim at targets irrespective of party politics then your site is propaganda. Do you agree?

…and I thought you weren’t going to answer me any more, and you wanted me to STFU!!!!

[No – I wanted you to STFU about your ongoing argument with Guy.
In my experience it’s pointless trying to explain satire to someone who doesn’t understand it because they never will.
However, here goes nothing. Do you think Jonathan Swift was attempting to report the news objectively about the famine in Ireland when he suggested that poor Irish families eat their own babies in his “A Modest Proposal”? Was that propaganda? Was it a joke? Was he making fun of the situation? Was it journalism? Was it objective?
No. It was satire. ] – TOM

“It’s been clear to me for some time now FinkFurst that you have absolutely no idea what satire is supposed to be.
That’s why you incessantly complain about my blogposts.
I think you need to find yourself a website you can understand.”

Funny, I thought I paid you some compliments too… and you’re confusing “understand” with “mindlessly agree with”.
.

Do you have to take over all posts by Tom Pride, FinkFurst? I have never “known” such a jumped up, annoying, arrogant person, who will do anything to get attention. Are you a tory by any chance? All I know is that I want to give you a good slap about the head.

OBD – I just watched it and the part that struck me is the guy who said he was angry about BBC bias. What’s the point in getting angry about that? There are plenty of other things which we should be FAR more angry about. You have to accept that there can never be one objective news source. You have to look at as many as you can and make up your own mind. In the context of world media the BBC is still one of the best, but it went downhill after the Gilligan affair.

(…of course whilst also taking the piss out of the obviously biased self-confessed news sources like Tom Pride!)

f f
anger is a very healthy emotion…and it drives people towards peaceful protesting like this one, the collective voice is/has spoken, jaw bone and tongue linked to clear mind are very powerful…it’s a process of change and realization…i see it as a beacon, if you like, away from isolation…people are moving more and more towards social media, for their information…this is the start of mass awakening and is no bad thing…in this case people coming together in concern that they and others are not being giving a full unbiased picture of what is really going on…propaganda works by isolating the individual to cause cognitive paralysis…the bbc for example claims this is how things are, this is the reality, they are clearly wrong….once upon a time they joined up the dots and people were content with what they heard, not any more, expressing anger shifts gum..so why are you unhappy/angry with tom pride…can’t you see your contradiction….you want his voice to go in a certain direction…why is that when we can passively get all of our info from social media…write your own blog, and you can express all the things that we need, iyo, too be FAR more angry about or just say it here! it’s good news that the yes campaign has TB’s support by saying no to indy, dyt…

I’m not angry with Tom, I’m just disappointed that a clever and witty person doesn’t use his talents in a better way than pointless partisanship. I hate to see waste. I certainly don’t want his voice to go in one particular direction, party or otherwise. That’s the whole point! I thought you understood that better than him.

Don’t worry about me. I express myself just fine here and elsewhere!

“the yes campaign has TB’s support” Can you explain? I don’t understand…

Judith: what you say is absolutely right – but the true situation is even worse than the picture you paint. In reality, the publicly-funded BBC has become utterly commercial.
They have become all about promoting products and brands, while kow-towing to the power elite. They are also allowed to be utterly unaccountable.
What other organisation could blow £100 million on an unsuccessful IT project – and no one answers for the blunder?
Davis, Paxman, Marr, et. al. – they are all self-promoting brands now.
All of these characters have become brands in themselves – for sale to anyone.
They are uninterested in truth or falsity; their prime rationale is promoting themselves as brands or products, in which a BBC elite colludes as they too are now only interested in paying themselves ridiculously inflated pay and perks packages.
BBC sales now amount to well over £1 billion per year.
I guess that they also receive kickback payments for promoting other people and other products. That and/or they make deals which allow them to gain the presence of so-called and self-styled “celebrities” on their radio and television “shows”.
This is the real focus of today’s BBC – money, money, money.
And this attitude infects everything they do.
Why do the Zionists get so much favourable publicity from the BBC?
Because the Zionists – like other parts of the UK elite – have got money.

f f
the labour party, in their present form are history in scotland…ditto the bbc! except here you can speak your mind and highlight your personal concerns without fighting the principles/morality of the blogger and/or drawing others into conflicts….i think it’s a waste that you get up peoples noses, being that you are so intelligent…

That’s perhaps where we disagree… I think getting up people’s noses is often the only way to get any response at all. Maybe I’m wrong, but at least it’s not boring! However, I ONLY ever do so when I think I have an argument which I’m prepared to make. People who can’t come back with a rational reply when they’re riled up, plainly don’t have a good one.

Constantly saying that the Tories/LibDems are totally wrong and Labour are totally right (whether in plain language or through ‘satire’) is boring and moronic. Tom… shove that up your nose!

[Has it ever occurred to you FinkFurst that criticising me simultaneously for being a partisan Labour supporter and for defending a Tory Lord is probably an unsustainable argument to make?] -TOM

1) You didn’t defend a Tory Lord, you only defended your own mistake about the poll.
2) Your question just reveals that your thinking is still partisan rather than rational.

[1) You’re so ignorant about polling you think polls should use random sampling. Please come back and discuss polling with me when you’ve studied up on it.
2) I am indeed partisan. Satire is ALWAYS partisan. Which shows me just how little you understand it. Please come back and discuss satire with me when you’ve studied up on it.] – TOM

1) Let’s start with – “Who commissioned the polling has no effect on the results”. Do you still think that’s true?
2) “I am indeed partisan” – Then please tell everybody if you are a Labour Party activist. It’s a very simple yes or no answer… (and please don’t avoid the question).

I totally agree with everything you say.
With what’s happening at the BBC, Joseph Goebbels couldn’t have done a better job. I’m afraid it’s them with the extreme wealth that get to set the media agenda. 😦
The good news is that slowly, people are beginning to awake from their stupor. 🙂

…because I hoped you might say “Yes” and that you’re not ashamed to be active on this site and elsewhere for the party you think is best for the future your country. At least that would have had some integrity. Instead you just showed yourself to be a wimp.

I’m talking about far more than intelligence, I’m talking about honesty and integrity.

I completely agree Judith!
It gets to the point these days that I no longer believe anything in the media!
All I do see is the suffering and the continued suffering of innocent woman, children and the elderly.